The cite provided mentions why the ballot was counted for Yancey -
[del][/del] Simonds
Yancey
Shades of the hanging chad…
Regards,
Shodan
The allegation is that it was counted twice. Got a cite?
As I understand it:
The ballots were counted in the re-count. As part of the re-count process, questionable ballots are set aside to be dealt with by the people doing the re-count. One of the ballots so handled everyone remembers was denied being counted for the reasons we’ve discussed. The result overall was a win for the Democratic candidate.
The Republican operatives asserted that the ballot that had been disputed should have been counted for the Republican instead of disallowed. Unfortunately, the ballots at that point had been re-integrated into a complete stack. So they went back through the ballots and the Republican operatives identified the ballot now being discussed as the ballot that had been disallowed, and claimed it should be counted. What no one can be certain of (it is alleged) is that this is the actual ballot that had been disallowed previously.
Of course, without seeing all the ballots voted, and being able to make some determination as to what candidate disputed ballots there are, we’re a bit at the mercy of the people in that Virginia precinct when it comes to knowing how likely it is that this ballot is or is not the one previously disallowed.
Historians aren’t sure when a coin or die was first used to make an arbitrary decision in a game of chance but it was probably before 3000 BC, the date to which Sumerian tetrahedral dice have been dated. One thing we can be sure of: Oog and Ogg, when casting their dice in an ancient version of Parcheesi, had a better method much less prone to cheating than the method used by the Virginia Board of Elections.
They went through a lot of pompous bullshit; then the Republican Chairman Alcorn while keeping his hand on the canisters the entire time, pulls out the Republican canister … while the Republican Secretary and Republican Vice Chairman look on smiling. It’s quite possible that Alcorn knew which canister was which, either because it was greased or otherwise distinguishable, or by keeping his hand on it the whole time.
Did he cheat? Maybe not; I’ll call it fifty-fifty, mainly because if the intent was to cheat there were many smarter ways. OTOH, the GOP isn’t noted for smarts; hence my 50-50 guess.
Trivial ways to improve the appearance of fairness: Shuffle the jar legitimately. And/or have a random citizen or celebrity — or anyway someone other than the same GOP Cheatman Alcorn who’d had his hand on them throughout the shuffling — draw the winner. Come to think of it, this drawing was so blatantly wrong-headed my 50-50 quote was generous. They probably did cheat.
The Vice Chair was given only a stupid token job in this charade, so I Googled to see if she was the token Democrat. Nope; she’s an expert at what Virginia GOP does best: Suppressing Democratic votes:
(The final sentence attributed to Vice Cheatman Wheeler seems unlikely. But I’ve copied this verbatim from a webpage.)
Also note that the decision to revise the count was taken solely by Republican partisans; the eventual drawing of [del]lots[/del] canisters was run totally by Republican partisans.
But all these partisan cheaters were selected (and black voters suppressed) in accordance by Virginia’s rules and democratic procedures. Some Dopers will view this as “Democracy in Action! Ha ha ha!!”
It stinks to high heaven.
Eau de Republican.
Am I, though?
Stranger
“actually won the recount by one vote” counts for about as much as having actually lost the original count.
I agree that this process wasn’t done well enough. The guy should have been blindfolded when drawing the lots, or at least done in some way that he couldn’t eyeball things beforehand - “I’ll pick the lot that’s to my left; that’s where the D/R candidate is”
For those of us who live here, this is a living, devastating, tragedy. I realize it does seem funny from the outside, but for a brief, shining minute, we had a chance to be happy with way our taxes were being spent. For me, and many other Virginians, it would have meant the chance to get healthcare.
She knew how high the stakes were, and for how many people. The fact that she made it out of the room without falling to her knees and keening is pretty impressive.
I wish I could say that I found it strange the winner didn’t trouble himself to be there. I hope his constituents notice his level of dedication.
I don’t find it funny in the slightest. Another Pubby-sleazed election. And I’ve only ever been a tourist to Virginia.
He was probably warned off so as to not be directly associated with corruption in public view, this giving him plausible deniability in case of challenge.
Stranger
You have the right to make a case that Stranger is wrong.
If you choose not to exercise that right, it suggests that you may not have much of a case. Just sayin’.
IANAL, but based on actual events over the past eon, I think it’s obvious that from a legal perspective, the results of the recount replace the results of the original count.
Yup, and the final recount tally (a tie) replaced the intermediate one (D + 1).
No, the recount result was D+1. You’re thinking of the double-count tally.
Whatever you want to call the one that actually counted in the end is fine with me.
So, you end with a ballot, that no one is sure whether it was counted already or not, and there is certainly no way to really determine the intent of the voter that puts the republican up to a tie.
Bricker has tried to make the clam that Voter ID will make people feel more confidence in their elections, especially in very close elections. Getting a close up look at how the elections are actually run should remove any confidence they felt whatsoever.
Whether it is “fine with[you]” or not is immaterial. The question is whether it was legitimate to take a ballot which was marked for both candidates and which was retroactively ascribed to one of them on the basis of a purported crossout (which every election ballot I’ve ever seen says not to do) which made the recount go from favoring a one vote lead for Simonds to a tie which was then broken by this questionable ‘blind draw’ process.
Absent of ballot stuffing or dumping (both of which have occurred but only rarely and in cases of gross electoral corruption, e.g. Chicago) there is an almost no indication of wide scale voter fraud in this past general election or in general. Errors in counting—even with electronic systems—are vastly greater than indications of voter fraud in every audit I’ve ever seen, and most voter ID laws are clearly geared toward making it more difficult for specific demographics of citizens to vote, e.g. those who do not have driver’s licenses, are students, and the elderly. I would support voter ID laws if they included provisions to assure that there is outreach and assistance to maximize voter registration and participation among all demographics, but that is clearly not the case with the majority of proposed and enacted laws.
Ballot verification, on the other hand—anonymous but traceable to polling station ballots with digital authentication using public key encryption with open source code—would make verification and recount virtually foolproof and instantaneous, and also eliminate the problem of voter errors like selecting two choices for the same candidate or proposition. This could provide confidence in elections which come down to a handful of votes without subjective interpretation by election officials with potential biases.
In this case, while there may be some legitimacy to questioning a recount that came down to a single vote, it is very clear that Republicans were highly motivated to invalidate the voting tally in Simonds’ favor, and that resolving the election by drawing is both arbitrary and in this case has some suspicious irregularities. Simonds, instead of throwing a fit or threatening to challenge the legitimacy of the process, stolidly accepted the result which is hardly “sore loser” and “behaving very poorly” that the o.p characterize her as displaying.
Stranger
Absent a judge declaring it illegitimate, I believe the answer is “yes, it’s legitimate”.